Why do Christians become Christians?

[robvalue]

Why do Christians become Christians?

1) Indoctrination at any early age

2) It's popular, convenient and saturates the environment

3) Pressure from family/society and mistreatment for non conformity

4) Easy answers to difficult questions

5) Punishments and rewards, including death not being the end

6) Comfort blanket; reality can be cruel, confusing and hard to accept

Same kind of reasons people join any religion.

[GUBU]

Confirmation bias doesn't make your memory better roadrunner, it makes it worse. And that is exactly what you describe here to "help" improve your memory, taking the bits you are prejudiced into feeling are right as true and discarding the ones that conflict your worldview. We "remember" episodes which agree with our worldview much better and with more frequency than we remember episodes which conflicts with it, and from you post you've fallen right into that trap.

Oh and if you've never inserted a whole false memory into your life, then you are abolutely unique in human history and should submit yourself for testing. However I'm going to say that this statement is another case of you fooling yourself due to a lack of understanding of your brain's fallibility.

I find that those that don't fit, stand out more.   And could you elaborate more on what you mean, by inserting a whole false memory.   I take this to mean, something which in no way resembles the reality of the experience (not just minor details).   How did you come to this conclusion?

I would just like to understand the principle being put forth in this view.... I don't see a way, in which it doesn't self destruct or result in special pleading.   Anything and everything, can be questioned, if we can simply dismiss testimony as stories, when our "confirmation bias" is rejecting a differing worldview.

Roadrunner, go back and read the thread from the point I quoted you up to my post, paying particular attention to your responses to Rhythm's thought experiment. Your posts are an ample demonstration if the problem I was talking about in my post. You have an unreliable memory (don't worry, we all do), but instead of acknowleding it properly and working with the limitations, you have convinced yourself that you have conquered the limitations, when all you've done is selected memories on the basis of their confirmation of your prejudices (now this is where yiu should worry).

My principle wrt personal memories is that they are inherently fallible, and unless we have independent confirmatory evidence of their accuracy they should be treated with a healthy dose of scepticism.

[robvalue]

Indeed, I made a spinoff thread about this subject here.

As you'll know, since you commented

The religious theists needs their memory to be true, for their "personal experiences", just like they need anecdotal stories in books to be true. The sceptic doesn't need anything to be true, and so can be more objective.

[GUBU]

Indeed, I made a spinoff thread about this subject here.

As you'll know, since you commented

The religious theists needs their memory to be true, for their "personal experiences", just like they need anecdotal stories in books to be true. The sceptic doesn't need anything to be true, and so can be more objective.

I remember remembering the gist of that thread. It was about whether jaffa cakes were biscuits, wasn't it?

[EuphoricAtheist]

Why do Atheists become Atheist? Watch till the end to find out :^OOO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4YtgA2jnu4

---

Helllo I am Jewish biscuit. Eat me

[RoadRunner79]

I think this comparison shows that you need to look into a little more what you are talking about.   It is not like the game of telephone at all.  For one, the information is not passed one at a time in series, without the others knowledge.  Much like here, if I where to make a mistake in a quote I made of you, others could chime in, and correct me.   There is corrective feedback....  Anthropologist, have shown, that cultures who rely strictly on oral traditions /transmission, can be very accurate, even in very long stories that take quite some time to tell.  

I think you're quibbling more than a bit with the details of how storytelling works, here. Yes, there is corrective feedback, but there's also input from so many sources, as the story is told and retold by the traveling men (the "Disciples"), and spread by those they told.

And the phenomenon you're discussing, which "anthropologists have shown", is more to do with how the Genesis stories survived, relatively intact, in the oral tradition prior to the invention of Canaanite writing and/or the actual writing of Genesis. Specialists (priests, shamans, etc) would memorize the stories, intact, and repeat them with surprising fidelity. That has little to do with the type of myth-building we see active in the Mormons, for instance, wherein several variant stories (with each retelling) get "corrected" back to a coherent whole only after myriad permutations emerge, and by comparing the result to actual records, we can plainly see and trace the trail of bullshit-- yet many people, including recent Presidential candidates, are Mormon.

So, what is your reason, to think that this is closer to the myth and legend building, rather than an oral tradition?  

They could have always asked Mary the mother of Jesus.  
Also, I don't think what you imagine, corresponds to history, and the disciples of Jesus geographic dispersion after Jesus's death.   Not to mention, the studies, that show that it takes generations for legend to replace the facts of a culture.  I'm also finding it difficult, that these separate groups would so quickly go from the rapidly changing stories that you propose, to come to an agreed upon version and rejecting that which differed so quickly.

You don't think it's plausible that, in an attempt to sell others on the legend of their teacher, they began to rely more heavily on the "signs and wonders" claims, which start out rather tame in James (and possibly Q), which are simply collections of his sayings (little to no magic), then increasingly added to the legend through Mark, Matthew, and Luke/Acts, until blowing up out of proportion a generation later, with John? You really don't see how the game to win converts to their new ideas might have altered the story somewhat?

We can follow the alterations made to the legends, through time, now. It's as plain as the nose on your face.
[/quote]

What I see is a difference in context and intent in many of the letters you are referring to.   The purpose of James and the letters to the churches, is to instruct them.   They are not about Jesus, but living as a Christian.   They do include miracles, but mostly by others, and always pointing to Jesus/God.  These Churches had already heard the Gospel.  The Gospels are telling the story of Jesus, and therefore talk more about Him      

Also; it is just my back of the envelope google calculation;  but John includes the least number of miracles by Jesus.   Where are you getting your figure?

It is  possible, that the legend grew over time (we don't have a record of these original teachings)  But I need good reasons to believe in conspiracy theories.   And I think that the historical evidence supports the traditional view better.

[RoadRunner79]

---

I find that those that don't fit, stand out more.   And could you elaborate more on what you mean, by inserting a whole false memory.   I take this to mean, something which in no way resembles the reality of the experience (not just minor details).   How did you come to this conclusion?

I would just like to understand the principle being put forth in this view.... I don't see a way, in which it doesn't self destruct or result in special pleading.   Anything and everything, can be questioned, if we can simply dismiss testimony as stories, when our "confirmation bias" is rejecting a differing worldview.

---

Roadrunner, go back and read the thread from the point I quoted you up to my post, paying particular attention to your responses to Rhythm's thought experiment. Your posts are an ample demonstration if the problem I was talking about in my post. You have an unreliable memory (don't worry, we all do), but instead of acknowleding it properly and working with the limitations, you have convinced yourself that you have conquered the limitations, when all you've done is selected memories on the basis of their confirmation of your prejudices (now this is where yiu should worry).

My principle wrt personal memories is that they are inherently fallible, and unless we have independent confirmatory evidence of their accuracy they should be treated with a healthy dose of scepticism.

I admitted from early on, that my memory isn't that good. And because of that, I don't try to B.S my way through it. If I don't remember, I am fairly likely to say so, or point out that it could be speculative. And I realize, that I don't know, what I don't know, but do not find that evidence points to the extreme claims being made here either.

I also agree, that we should be skeptical without multiple lines of evidence.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

You're right... John has the lowest number of miracles, though it does include a few not mentioned in the other gospels.

I'm referring mainly to how the miracles are described (the shift from "the miracles occurred because the person being healed had faith", generally, to "they believed because of his miracles") and the claims of actual divinity (as opposed to inferences) which don't show up until the Gospel of John.

My reference to James wasn't about what the epistle was for, but how it referred to the legend of the Christ. These are the things that lead me to believe that Jesus was a real person, a real teacher who developed a following, and that after his death the followers continued to expand on his legend until he went from "empowered by God" to actually being God. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's actual myth-building... legends pop up for various reasons, and are winnowed back down into a congruent canon. That's why I gave the example of the Mormons, who went through the same process-- but in a time when record-keeping was better, and we can see the manipulation over time, as it occured. I am proposing that a similar thing happened with the early Christian church.

[drfuzzy]

---

You're right... John has the lowest number of miracles, though it does include a few not mentioned in the other gospels.

I'm referring mainly to how the miracles are described (the shift from "the miracles occurred because the person being healed had faith", generally, to "they believed because of his miracles") and the claims of actual divinity (as opposed to inferences) which don't show up until the Gospel of John.

My reference to James wasn't about what the epistle was for, but how it referred to the legend of the Christ.

---

These are the things that lead me to believe that Jesus was a real person, a real teacher who developed a following, and that after his death the followers continued to expand on his legend until he went from "empowered by God" to actually being God. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's actual myth-building

---

... legends pop up for various reasons, and are winnowed back down into a congruent canon. That's why I gave the example of the Mormons, who went through the same process-- but in a time when record-keeping was better, and we can see the manipulation over time, as it occured. I am proposing that a similar thing happened with the early Christian church.

---

And, as we know, the "divinity" of Jesus wasn't officially decided until 325, with the Council of Nicaea, convened by Constantine.  The Council had to combat the growing "heresy" of Arianism, which stated that the Son of God came into existence at his birth, and was not truly eternal.  John is usually dated to 90-110, but there were multiple versions and revisions.  
    This is a part of the myth-building that now constantly amazes me - - that councils are convened to decide the nature of god, and what is right doctrine vs. what is wrong.  That's a long way away from the OT - god described as speaking directly to many people, pillars of fire, writing commandments, walking through the camp at night to protect his people.  Everything is a matter of debate by clergy, and god never shows up to weigh in on anything.